The effect of background noise on the ability to perceive and remember unrelated words in nonnative listeners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonnative listeners find it more difficult to meet the challenges presented by additional background noise than do native listeners [Ezzatian et al., Speech Commun. 52, 919–929 (2010)], but it is not known whether it is more difficult for them to remember what was said in noisy situations than it is for native listeners. Previous studies have acknowledged that the effect of background noise on the ability to perceive and remember unrelated words is greater in older adults than younger adults. The present study investigates auditory memory performance in nonnative younger adults, using a paired-associate paradigm in three conditions: quiet, continuous babble and babble during word presentation only. Noise levels were adjusted to equate for individual differences in the ability to identify single words in noise. The initial results suggest that nonnative listeners perform similarly to native young adults in the quiet and continuous conditions but worse in the babble during the word-presentation-only condition. These results suggest that stream segregation may be slower in nonnative listeners when the masker and the target words start at the same time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".